
ON THE AGE OF MAYA RUINS 




BY 



CHARLES P. BOWDITCH 



(From the American Anthropologist (N. s.), Vol. 3, October-December, 1901) 



NEW YORK 

G. f. PUTNAM'S SONS 

1901 




Book ..'SlgZ. 






I \ 



/(T 



ON THE AGE OF MAYA RUINS 

By CHARLES P. BOWDITCH 

The inscription lately discovered in Chichen Itza by Edward 
H. Thompson, United States Consul at Merida, is of more than 
passing interest. It contains an Initial Series of glyphs, which, 
so far as I know, gives the only initial date that has been found 
in the northern part of Yucatan. 

Although it may be a matter of doubt on what date the long 
count declared by the Initial Series began, yet, if we assume 
that the majority of the initial dates refer to the time when the 
buildings or stelae on which the dates occun were erected (and 
this assumption seems altogether probable), we can at least de- 
cide on the relative age of the ruined cities in which the buildings 
or stelae are found. 

The great cycle glyph in the Chichen Itza date is somewhat 
injured, but it is apparently of the same character as those found 
elsewhere. The numbers of the cycle, katun, tun, and uinal 
periods are lo, 2, 9, and i, respectively. The number of the 
kin period is a face which, from the circle of dots around the 
mouth, is pretty surely 9. The day number is 9 and the month 
number is 7. The day glyph is somewhat obscure, but contains 
a circular frame supported by a knot, while the month glyph is 
pretty surely Zac. We can then be sure of the following: ?. 10. 
2. 9. I. ?, 9. ?. 7. ?., with the probability that the second ? 
should be replaced by 9 and the last ? should be replaced by 
Zac. Assuming for the moment that the great cycle sign is 
what Goodman calls 54, we find from the tables that 54. 10. 2. 
9. o. o. is 6 Ahau 18 Chen (49), and that 54. 10. 2. 9. i. o. is 13 
Ahau 18 Yax (49). Now, in order to reach a day with the number 

697 



698 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [n. s., 3, 1901 

9 and a month day with the number 7 from 13 Ahau 18 Yax, 
we must add 9 days. This makes the date necessarily 54. 10. 
2. 9. I. 9., 9 Muluc 7 Zac (49). The day sign, though rubbed, 
has the characteristics of Muluc, and the month is shown to be 
surely Zac ; the kin number is also proved to be 9. 

There is just a possibility that the great cycle may not be 54. 
If it is 53, the date must be 9 Muluc 12 Muan ; if it is 55, the 
date must be 9 Muluc 2 Yaxkin ; but the month number is 
clearly 7, which eliminates both these great cycle numbers. In 
order to find a great cycle with the numbers ?. 10. 2. 9. i. 9, 9. 
?. 7. ?, we should have to go back or forward from Great Cycle 
54 at least five great cycles, which means over 25,000 years. 
This is such an enormous distance that it can practically be 
thrown out of consideration, and we may be well satisfied that 
the great cycle is really the same period in which almost every 
one of the other dates occurs, viz., 54. 

It will be interesting to compare this date with the first and 
last known dates of the other ruined cities of Chiapas and Guate- 
mala. I give a list of these dates : 



Earliest 

Piedras Negras 54-9- 8. 10.6. 16 

Copan 54-9- 6.10.0. o 

Quirigua 54.9. 14. 13.4. 17 

Yaxchilan 54-9- 0.19.2. 4 

Palenque 54-9- 4- o-o- o 



54.9. 12. 2. 0.16. 
54.9. 16.10. o. o. 
54.9.19.13. 0.12. 

54.9. 8. 9.13. o. 





Period of 




Existence 


3- 


ir.i2. 0. 


10. 


0. 0. 0. 


4- 


19. 13.15. 


4- 


9.T3. 0. 



The above collation establishes the fact that Piedras Negras, 



' The date of Stela D given by Goodman as 54. g. 5. 5. o. o. is almost surely 
54. 9. 15. 5. o. o. 

^ The dates 54. 13. o. o. o. o. and 54. 9. i. o. o. o. may well be traditional and 
not historical, and refer to a period lying far in the past. 

^ This date on Lintel 22 is very clear, but as it is the only one which I have seen, 
I omit it in the following discussion. If historical, it is earlier than the earliest date 
of Quirigua except that of the normal date 54. 13. o. o. o. o. , 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu. 

* The dates of the Temple of the Cross, Temple of the Sun, and Temple of the 
Foliated Cross are almost surely traditional. The date on the Palace Steps, given by 
Goodman as 55. 3. 18. 12. 15. 12., should undoubtedly be 54. 9. 8. 9. 13. o. 



bowditch] on the age OF MAYA RUINS 699 

Copan, Palenque, and Quirigua flourished contemporaneously 
for at least a part of their existence, for the last known date of 
Palenque is but o. 11. 16, or less than one year before the first 
known date of Piedras Negras. This does not necessarily mean 
that Palenque was deserted at the establishment of Piedras 
Negras. Of course as investigation proceeds other inscriptions 
may be discovered which may give earlier or later dates, but it 
is interesting to note the relation between the known dates of all 
these cities. 

The date of Chichen Itza is later than any of the dates found 
above. The following list shows the distance from the earliest 
and latest dates of the ruined cities of Chiapas and Guatemala 
to the date recently found in Chichen Itza. 

DISTANCE OF THE EARLIEST AND LATEST DATES TO THE DATE OF 

CHICHEN ITZA 

Earliest Latest 

Piedras Negras 13. 18. 12. 13, 2747. 323 d. 10. 7.0.13,2047. 73 d. 

Copan 15.19. I. 9, 3147. 259 d. 5-i9-i- 9, 1177-164 d. 

Quirigua 7. 15. 14.12, 1537. 247 d. 2.16.0.17, 557. 102 d. 

Palenque 18. 9. i. 9,3647. 9 d. 13. 19.6. 9,2757. 194 d. 

The Book of Chilan Balam of Mani' states that on Katun I3 
the people whose history is recorded in this book reached Chac- 
nouitan eighty years after leaving Nonaual, and that on Katun 
6 of the following cycle Chichen Itza was discovered, and that 
on Katun 11 of the second following cycle they removed to 
Chichen Itza, having remained at Chacnouitan ninety-nine 
years. The distance from Katun 13 of one cycle to Katun 6 of 
another is 200 tuns, or about 197 years. The distance from 
Katun 13 of one cycle to Katun 11 of the second following cycle 
is 280 tuns or about 276 years. 



1 The Maya Chronicles, D. G. Brinton, Phil'a, 1882, p. 87. 



70O 



AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 



[n. s., 3, igoi 



First date 

of Piedras 54.9.8. 10.6. i6 

Negras, 

Last date 

of Piedras 54.9. 12. 2. 0.16 

Negras, 



J-3.11.12. o. == 70 y. 250 d. 



First date 1 

of Quirigua, 54.9.14.13.4.17 | 



}>4.i9.i3.i5 = 98y. 145 d. 



Last date I 

of Quirigua, 54.9.19.13.0.12 j 



13. 18.12. 13 = 

274 y- 323 d- 



Chichen 
Itza, 



2.16.0.17.^557. ^°2 d. 



54.10.2. 9. T. 9 



The coincidences of dates are remarkable when it is seen that 
the length of time from the first date of Piedras Negras to that of 
Chichen Itza is 278! tuns, while the time between the arrival 
at Chacnouitan to the removal to Chichen Itza is given by the 
Book of Chilan Balam as 280 tuns. More than this, if an inscrip- 
tion should be found hereafter in Piedras Negras recording a 
date as late as 54. 9. 13. 9. 6. 16, this would show a stay in 
Piedras Negras of 99 tuns, the time given in the manuscript for 
the stay at Chacnouitan, and if about 54. 9. 13. 9. 6. 16, the 
people of Piedras Negras deserted that city, they would have 
passed 204 years and 73 days before arriving at Chichen Itza, 
Now, all the historical dates of Quirigua lie between this last 
date and that of their arrival at Chichen Itza. Could the people 
of Piedras Negras have passed over to Quirigua and occupied 
that city during a part of this period of 204 years?' 

Such speculations may not be of great value, but if they 
excite enough interest to induce a more thorough investigation, 
they will not be absolutely useless. 



' If, however, we accept the date of 54. 9. i.e. o. o. in Quirigua as historical, as I 
was inclined to think when I wrote " Memoranda on the Maya Calendars used in the 
Books of Chilan Balam," the foundation of Quirigua would be anterior to all the dates 
which I have used in the above calculations. 



tlbe "Itnicfterbocfter presB, t\eve JPork 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

lillllllillliil 

015 843 390 4 



